Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle
I believe the "theoretical" reason it's supposed to be better would be something like this:
- By adding the layer of "President of Hockey Operations" it puts someone who's primary strength is managing the "on ice product" (said another way, the playing performance and success of the team) in a more stable and less volatile position. This person "theoretically" should not be held or feel as responsible for the short term success or failures of the teams on ice performance. Rather, this person should be held accountable to the longer term vision and goals of the club.
In plain English, it should "theoretically" make the club less likely to fall victim to "short" term hockey decisions that are made by desperate GM to protect his job, or stave off his own execution.
In the more common management structure, the GM title is often the last stop up the ladder that a true "hockey expert or hockey management professional" holds. Above him, are usually traditional "non hockey guys" like Owners and Presidents who have achieved their success through business savvy, not assembling winning sports teams. The problem comes with this structure, is when the pressure is on in the interim to win, and the GM is being held accountable for both the long and the SHORT term success of the club. For example, if the GM might feel like his job is in jeporady if the playoffs are missed, he may make some moves that are long term damaging, to hold off his dismal in the short term. A survival mechanism, fix the short term, deal with the long term later and fix it then.
Impacts of a move like that might not hurt or be realized until some years after. Problem being, that in the moment, the non hockey President or Owners of the club, are the only ones truly potentially concerned about the long term impacts, are reliant on their GM to advise them on the hockey impacts of said decision. But in this case, the GMs bigger motivation is to win in the short term, convince owners it will be re-coverable long term and they should go for it.
If you insert a "President of Hockey Ops" like the Flames have, it should prevent the above "short term decisions making" that often hurts teams. He will not be able to be "convinced" that long term impacts of certain moves aren't as harmful, and will force the team to stick to a plan that is consistent with the long term vision. Something he can do because it's not his job on the line (no survival decision making) and because he is also a hockey expert and understand the moves being made.
I'm sure the relationship is not as adversarial as I'm describing above between GM and President, in a functional relationship it should work much more collaboratively. But in a Nutshell, the above would be the benefit of the structure IMO.
|
An interesting theory, and one that you have expressed very well; however, in the case of the Flames, what happens if they still haven't made the playoffs five years from now? Would the short term pressure to win not have shifted from the GM to the President at that point? Indeed, under that scenario, there would very likely also be a new GM in place; one who might well want to take a longer term road to success than the now-beleaguered President would want. Their perspectives would have been reversed from those that you describe.
As a long time Burke observer, going back to his first tour of duty in Vancouver in the late 80s as Pat Quinn's assistant, I find the Calgary management situation very interesting. I think the titles of the two jobs, President and GM, are nothing more than new descriptors of "GM" and "Assistant GM", respectively. There is no question in my mind that Burke effectively is, and will continue to be, the "true" GM and that Treliving will effectively be his assistant. Yes, they will work collaboratively, but there will be no trades, contracts, draft picks, etc. without Burkie's sign off - not a chance.
Look at the situations in Toronto and Colorado - Nonis and Sherman, respectively, are nominally the GMs in those two organizations but it is clear that the power they once held has shifted to others. I see the situation in Calgary as no different, regardless of how loudly Burke may protest that he "has no desire to be a general manager."
This is not a bad thing for the Flames; to the contrary, it is a very good thing, as Burke, despite his faults, is overall a very good hockey man and I think he will probably get the Flames' ship back on course before too many more seasons go by.